Published Friday, February 22, 2008 at 17:55
by
jonworth
(946 views and 2 comments)
What is the price of symbolism, the historic reconciliation of France and Germany in the post-World War II Europe? Strasbourg, one of the seats of the European Parliament, is the very embodiment of the values of peace and reconciliation.
On the other hand the European Parliament's monthly trips to Strasbourg show how wasteful the European Union can be - getting all the MEPs, Assistants, Secretariat staff and documents there each month costs €200 million a year and 20000 tonnes of CO2 emissions (source: OneSeat, T&E). If we're cynical about it, perhaps the Member States want the EP to look like some kind of travelling circus? But as citizens and activists we should demand better than that.
So what are the options? One would be for the European Parliament to be located only in Strasbourg. This would for sure keep the city of Strasbourg content, and would maintain the historical significance of French-German reconciliation. But plenty of MEPs and staff would still have to make the trip on the motorway or train to Brussels to meet Commission and Council officials - hence the environmental impact of this might even be negative.
While plenty of federal states have institutions spread across the country (the German Bundesverfassungsgericht is in Karlsruhe for example) none that I know of have all the executive functions (the Commission at EU level) in one place, and one of the legislatures somewhere else. Plus the EP in Strasbourg, and the Council and Commission in Brussels would undoubtedly strengthen the Council's hand - no thanks.
So what else can be done? My favoured solution would be for some other EU institution to be able to use the buildings in Strasbourg - the proposed European Institute of Innovation and Technology perhaps. Or find some solution to develop Strasbourg as a centre of European and EU law by moving the Court of Justice from Luxembourg?
This issue is especially poignant as the European Parliament has been mired in allegations of fraud this week (more from Jean Quatremer, Mark Mardell). Whatever does or does not get proven with regards to MEPs' expenses is all rather immaterial in comparison to €200 million spent on trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.
I'm willing to debate where the EP should be situated and what compensation - if any - that Strasbourg should get. But can any PES candidate at the 2009 EP elections look a voter in the eye and say with all honesty that they are happy with the status quo of two seats? I very much doubt it.
Comments
1. We need to convince France by tolerance on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 18:04
Unfortunately, I have a feeling this will never move anywhere. The French won't accept it.
2. Intolerable situation by avalon on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 09:28
We can still keep Strasbourg as symbol if we can have - as Jon suggested - other institution based there.
What cannot be tolerated is the waste of time, money, energy and the negative environmenal impact of all the travelling between Brussels and Strasbourg.
Anyway, isn't the European Union supposed to be about solidarity, cohesion and not looking at one's belly button?
To be able to post comments you need to be logged in. No account yet? Register here! Lost your password?